AVmail: November 2, 2015

Regarding Paul Bertorelli's blog about gender imbalance:

Aviation, as a profession, seems to have set the modern standard on "imbalance," an ironic fact given the physical principles on which it is based. Does it make sense to address the subject of gender imbalance without including wage imbalance, race imbalance, age discrimination issues, and others?

I have always seen the opportunity to make a living by flying through the air as an almost dreamlike avocation. The sensory indulgence and unique rewards of flying are enough, as I see it, to create its own world of competitiveness and goal-setting, quite independent of salary. This is especially relevant, in my view, to the question of who would pursue — and succeed at obtaining — employment in aviation.

Although the issues of gender-neutral opportunity are important, I would suggest that other factors may play an overwhelmingly larger role. Historically at least, there has always been a (dare I say "gender-specific"?) role of bravado in the training process. I'll admit my training experience in a 152 didn't exactly resemble the set of The High and the Mighty, but that flavor was there.

And yet, perhaps one of aviation's biggest contributions to the world of technically challenging and potentially life-threatening endeavors (think medicine) is the concept of CRM — a concept that, if carried to its logical end, pretty much defines egalitarian attitudes to all, without respect to race or gender.

To me, this is where the answer lies: Move those attitudes out of the cockpit and into the larger training environment. A student who constantly feels intimidated for reasons outside of his or her control will obviously be discouraged from continuing. Make the training experience a collegial one, and this battle will be at least half won.

Aviation salaries? Imbalanced. Schedules? Lifestyles? Pathologically imbalanced. But the responsibility for creating a nurturing training environment is one that can't be placed at any other doorstep but ours.

Anthony Nasr

In the beginning, there was a cow pasture. Some time later, men with flying machines cut strips in the pasture to allow for takeoffs and landings. There were not many regulations, and hundreds of shade tree mechanics built their own airplanes or, if they could afford it, bought manufactured planes and worked on them themselves.

Early on, these airstrips were remote, and some of these planes would experience engine failures on takeoff. Glide performance might not be very good, and nine times out of 10, the takeoff was in the direction of yet another cow pasture. Proper wisdom and basic flight training taught pilots to simply land straight ahead or slightly to the left or right of course.

This technique and safety protocol were ingrained in our head and culture. It was ridiculous to even consider any other option. Even the FAA began mandating this obvious decision-making attribute!

But something happened on the way into our future. Aerodynamics improved, and those cow pastures adjacent your airport were being developed.

If you've been watching the news or reading the paper, you will have noticed the great number of airplanes crashing into houses, buildings, and freeways after takeoff. There are two deadly contributing factors: The adjacent cow pasture is replaced by concrete and steel, and the way student pilots are being taught to cope with engine failure on or after takeoff.

Today, in most cases, the airport environment is the safest place to hope to land. It is unsafe to continue to teach students to always accept what fate has put in front of you when there are so many better options! Every pilot should be taught at what minimum altitude he or she can make it back to the runway, the center of the field or nearest taxiway — or even nearest ramp. No one should be cleared in a new plane unless an instructor has demonstrated these new principles or techniques!

Every pilot should study the airport environment and decide where and how he is going to land if the engine fails on takeoff, from landing on the remaining runway, turning 90 degrees to land somewhere on the airport, or knowing the minimum altitude that will allow him a full 220 degrees back to the runway and a downwind landing.

It is more than ridiculous to allow the current practice to continue.

Jerry Wheeler
CFI, CFII, MEI, ATP, A&P

Regarding the article on aircraft resale scams:

Rick Durden's article puts all aircraft dealers in the same bad light. That is as wrong as saying that all lawyers are "ambulance chasers." That just is not the case. He makes a case that certain words such as "fresh annual" somehow indicate that the seller is corrupt. This again is totally wrong and indicates to me that he and his clients are not the victims. They most likely are the real perpetrators of their own misguided dealings.

As an airport manager and aircraft salesman, in business for some 50 years at the same location, I have found that many times individuals selling their planes exaggerate their characteristics. There are few respectable long-time aircraft dealers who do that. In fact, most will tell you everything bad as well as good about the aircraft they have for sale.

I have lost many a deal when I told a buyer that the Conquest he is looking at is going to cost him $1,000 an hour to fly or that the plane has an original log book missing. That separates the men from the boys. It also allows me to determine if the buyer is serious and knowledgeable.

Separating those that are tire-kickers from real buyers who ask the right questions and expect honest answers is difficult. In the 1970s, one in about seven interested buyers would actually buy an airplane. That number is way down today. You may talk with 15 or 20 potential buyers before you make a sale.

A reputable aircraft dealer will not want an unhappy client. At West Houston, we sell planes to owners who base their aircraft with us. That is usually the situation with FBOs that sell planes. The FBO wants the continued business of the buyer, and he does not want to make him unhappy.

That does not mean that things won't go wrong after the purchase. A shop performing a "pre-buy" inspection cannot guarantee that everything will work for any given time after it leaves their shop. In most cases, a buyer is purchasing at least a decade-old plane with almost every item in the plane made by a different manufacturer. You can't warrant that, but if you do, you will have to get more money for the plane to allow for those future problems — as at least one dealer I know does. He marks his planes up substantially and gives the buyer written assurances. This is one good way to sell planes, obviously at top dollar. But if that gives the buyer peace of mind, then good for him.

Using the word "fresh" does not make a dealer a shyster. In addition, unlike as portrayed in the article, reputable dealers want the customer to be happy, and they fix things that are known to be inoperative or not to FAA or manufacturers standards. "Fresh" overhaul merely means that it was recently performed. It is still up to the buyer to determine the reputation of the overhauling agency or shop. Field overhauls vs. repair station overhauls vs. factory overhauls: They are all different, and that must be taken into consideration. It's easy to check out.

So many planes have lost logs, hail or other damage, bad cosmetics, old avionics. These should not be deal-killers, just a good buy for someone looking for a project or to just get something to fly, and they can be purchased at the right price after some due diligence.

The writer was looking at the subject matter from his own perspective, as a lawyer suing sellers, shops, and others. It's best to look for ways to solve problems without litigation.

Woody Lesikar

Regarding the registration of drones:

Rather than a requirement that customers be licensed in some way, at horrendous bureaucratic expense, how about this:

Manufacturers be required to put a concealed serial number on each drone produced. Failure to do so would entail a big fine. The same number would appear on a tag or sticker for retailer use.

Each retailer would record and save the serial number and identity of the final purchaser, and a pamphlet would notify the customer that the record was saved for government use if the drone was involved in any kind of illegal activity.

James Thompson